Nature: The Unrepresented Shelter

The most one-sided equation

On a morning walk today to explore a new part of Singapore, it occurred that whilst there aren’t acres and acres of free land, there is a very rich biodiversity in the tranches of land that are guarded and kept as nature would have it. Singapore ranks number 1 in the world on the MIT Green View Index, which is a measure of tree concentration. It’s name as the Garden City certainly something it continues to live up to. ~50% of Singapore is “green” in the sense of being trees, lakes or other greenery. On the walking path today I saw a complete cross-section of the two, one moment in depths of nature with aquatic animals and lizards, and within just ten minutes, back in the typical concrete urban set up. Singapore is a good, or great example of how a City should have its “nature v man-made” ratio managed. Who sets the ratio? Who bargains? Who are the actors, or stakeholders? Well, on the one side there is the “non-human” composition of Earth, and the other side is the human. When the human, full of desire and self-serving ambition decides to “go get”, where can they get anything from? Of course, it’s the non-human Earth. Gems, oil, and other natural resources form the bedrock of the “real economy”, and are the means to humans achieving what is in their eyes, their potential. So the ambitious human, needs to get something. If I wanted a building from another human, I can’t simply walk in and own it, I need to bargain. Have I got the credit line? Am I a worthy owner? After this, the owner may or may not decide to let me buy the premises. It comes with a price tag. On walking out of the mangroves this morning, I was reflecting that it should be appreciated that the designers have given a much greater bandwidth for nature that most other places. But who bargained? Did nature name a price? Did nature check the credit line? Or the worthiness of the human race to exploit it like it’s being exploited all over the world? Nature is silent; there will be no protest.

Opinions & Perspectives

Between 1946 and 1958 the United States conducted nuclear testing off an island called Bikini Atoll. They exploded 23 nuclear bombs in the sea, 42.4 TNT of explosive power; this is more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs combined. Prior to the tests, the natives living on the island were gathered some for testing. They were told that the work the United States were doing was for furthering the will of God, Jesus Christ. The natives firstly not knowing any better, and secondly being helpless in the midst of US power, just tried to stay as clear as they could, but of course ended up deformed for multiple generations. It was the perspective of the US that US hegemony was the way to go. The other perspectives clearly would have varied, or at least been up for debate. Were these means to stop further aggression from Imperial Japan, and the Nazis, and keep such things at bay? Certainly many “facts” were disclosed at the time to support this. Just as they were before the assassination of Sadam Hussain. Or were these things not absolutely necessary, but things you can do when you have power, just because you can? We’re only discussing this now since the United States revealed under the Clinton administration in the 1990s the secret initiatives they were undertaking since it is part of their rules. If not, we would not even know of this. 

There is no doubt that so-called facts and evidence can be engineered, manipulated, in order to meet specific ends. Lessons from history, and stories of vice and virtue can help illustrate that the recent phenomena of fake news, misinformation, is anything but new; it might be using new tools, but as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun. In the Mahabharata, the devious and deceptive cousins the Kauravas had schemed to send the Pandava brothers to the forest for 12 years, plus one year in disguise, such that if they were recognised in the last year, they would have to go again for 12 years. In the last year, the Kauravas sent an army to a kingdom called Matsya where there was word that the Pandavas were hiding. The elder Kurus who hastily went to support the Kauravas on their request, they wanted to sit on the fence as they didn’t want to openly support the righteous Pandava brothers out of fear of being locally reprimanded, or have their income and support stopped from the kingdom since they were ruling. They had a soft spot for the virtuous Pandavas, but were effectively silenced. When the eldest Kaurava, Prince Duryodhana asked the elders to confirm that if the Pandavas are recognised at this time, then it would mean they would need to be exiled again. Kripa, a priestly teacher said that it is not entirely clear whether identifying them would qualify or not to send them back again. Bhishma, a more outspoken Kuru, said that it was very clear for him that identifying them now was too late as their 13th year is already finished based on the location of the planets. Duryodhana disputed this, claiming that what he says is the truth, simply by virtue of him saying it, although he had no other basis for it. In this way, you have three different views on the “truth”, which were all being contested by different parties. They had different agendas, priorities, and needs. Kripa didn’t want to burn a bridge either side. Duryodhana clearly wanted the kingdom at any expense. The most impartial could be argued to be Bhishma since his opinion was also least likely to be self-serving, but Duryodhana and his team also picked holes in it saying that he is always partial to the Pandavas from the beginning. So there will always be these three things; opinions and perspectives.

Reality is One

On an absolute level, there was a definitive answer to whether the Pandavas had really completed the due term of their exile. There was also a definitive answer to the threat that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany posed. The issue that clouds these, are agendas, mostly selfish, some ideological, and then on top of this our imperfect ability to see the reality due to the reasons discussed last week on our several shortcomings in perception. The mainstream certainly take full advantage of our somehow inherent inability to perceive truth due to preoccupation with self-interest. Therefore, what we connect with must not be linked to this selfish side of humans. The safestay, is therefore nature. The innocence of the flows of water, the soaring swift birds gliding hundreds of meters high barely visible to the eye, the morning dew simmering in the renewed rays of sunlight. These are our safestays. We must remember that nature didn’t come to the bargaining table, but it is ever-existing. It is deeply connected with us in ways we do not have the perception to understand. Indeed we are made of it, we are part of it, and we would do ourselves well to better understand it. This connection is not serving propaganda, or other self-interests, but is serving our best interests, which are inextricably interwoven with the planet. Coming from this perspective, we will develop opinions that are aligned with the reality, and aligned with truth. 

“In valour Rama is comparable to Vishnu, and in his looks he is attractive like the moon, he equals the Earth in his forgiveness.”

Narada Muni to Sage Valmiki, 1.1.18-19a, Bala Kanda, Book of Youthful Majesties, Ramayana

Why Trump Lost

“This is my...”

A quite senior and distinguished professional was once explaining to me how he was in a restaurant sat eating in Hong Kong, when an middle-aged American man came in with someone who seemed to be someone who worked for him. The American man in a loud voice such that the entire restaurant can hear, began explaining “This is how my management style works..” “I don’t like it when people do this..” “I want people to…” The conversation wasn’t really a conversation, it was a monologue. It was very annoying to anyone who could hear it. A bar brawl is far more likely to be started by someone who is egostic, out-there, and a ‘trouble-maker’, who might run into someone else like that, than an introverted, quiet silent person sitting in the corner sipping a quiet drink on his own. The lion doesn’t look like some docile, harmless creature; it has a tongue that is razor sharp and can scrape off an animals skin, what to speak of a human’s skin. When we see a crocodile, just by it’s physical features; we are automatically on-guard to the risk it might pose; especially in today’s society where humans and animals don’t really live together. It is human nature at an instinctive, or “gut-feel” level, therefore to associate external features with potential behaviour, and flag it as a risk. It’s what we call our ‘radar’ where alarm bells start going off based on certain things we see. We are setting an expectation based on previous experience or awareness. The issue with this is, it isn’t always accurate. Many ‘home-grown’ terrorists in England are extremely unassuming, they become brainwashed with ideology, and become a dire threat to hundreds of people. They could be the quiet guy, the introvert, etc, and cause far more harm than the ‘loud mouth in the bar.’ The COVID-19 virus is a bug, it cannot even be seen, it is a far greater threat than the lion. It doesn’t have sharp teeth, nor teeth that can grind through bone. It is a tiny micro-particle, which is now responsible for the deaths of one and a quarter million people within a year. Sometimes we are absolutely right in associating a wild and scary appearance with a wild and scary being, but equally we sometimes fail to see the threats of the “quiet guy”, and the “unseen” things. In this sense we are prone to making associations that may or may not be correct.

Politeness, Humility & Respect

When we observed the external behaviour, the speech, and conduct of President Barack Obama, it was absolutely pleasing to see. Gentlemanly in his dealings, polite to address sometimes even impolite people and reporters, and also humorous at the appropriate times. He blew everyone away. We saw similar with Tony Blair in the U.K. young and fresh Oxford graduate and politician, he was a breathe of fresh air for many in a country after years of consecutive Conservative Party rule. Tony Blair went on to agree to a war against Iraq which was unfounded, and grossly harmful both to the people of Iraq, and also to thousands of British troops made to fight there, many of whom died, and many of which returned with less limbs, a very sad sight. He later went on to admit the mistake and circumstance that gave rise to the decision, however it was grossly lamentable; people cannot be bought back from the dead in concession of a mistake, nor can people’s limbs be the same as they were. The ‘deep’ values are what drives one to make benevolent decisions over the fate of thousands, or even millions of peoples lives. The ‘superficial’ or surface level eh values are what make people feel pleased in interacting with you. The superficial values can take you a long way. Why? Because it is what people see. It is what people have to deal with. It carries an energy, and it will easily affect people. Rudeness is not something many people like. Noone can stand a bully who shouts and yells, doesn’t care for public humiliation of another. It just doesn’t resonate with most of us, and rightly so. The Mahabharata has the character of Shakuni. His sister married the King of Hastinapur, the ruling dynasty, who was physically blind and she voluntarily put a veil over her eyes so that she could experience the same thing as her husband. Being displeased with this situation and the sacrifice she was undergoing, her brother decided to do all he could to enact the demise of the kingdom. He worked on the crown princes, to cause internal friction with their cousins who also had claim to the throne. Sewing these seeds of division, he always tried to come across smiling and laughing courteously so that he would not be held in so much suspicion by the more rigorously truthful elders, he tried to hide his deep values through superficial ones. The Pandavas, on the most part had robust deep values, and would act with external respect and in a manner giving dignity to others also. Some of the brothers, most notably Bhima had very little regard for superficial values, manners etc. Of course he would be very respectful to the elders who were honourable to him, however to those who weren’t Bhima had no qualms in expressing his disgust, and abrasively. Indeed he made the famous promise when his wife Draupadi was attempted to be disrobed, that he would rip open the chest and drink the blood of Dushashana, and went on to do so. He also chastised his elder brother Yuddhishitra many times saying it was not necessarily his ‘deep’ values, but weakness of heart that stopped him from seizing what was rightfully theirs. Yuddhistira and Bhima were generally at different extremes in approach and sometimes at odds with each other as a result, but were aligned in their cause. Yuddhistira tried to be perfect in both deep and superficial values. Bhima gave priority to deep values. And Arjuna tried to break a balance of the two, seeking the counsel of Krishna where he was unsure. Yuddhistira is still regarded as Dharmaraj, or guardian of dharma, or truth. Bhima isn’t really given much praise. Arjuna of course is always regarded as the supreme hero. Good people generally like to see good values in a demonstrable way and it is pleasing to them. Often this is actually on the surface only. We don’t have the time or inclination to lift the bonnet. Nor is it possible. We do not observe the private lives of leaders, nor is there perfectly accurate accounts of them. So we rely on what we can see; it is only natural, just like if we are in a forest and we see in bushes orange fur with black stripes, we will tend to have alarm bells ring. The Mahabharata, and Bhagavat Gita tell us to go deeper with values, not stay superficial. Deeper values are what are truly defining. They do not hinge on being black, or white, or well-spoken; but they define the substance of what you do, not how you come across.

Values, and Not Individuals

In one sense we cannot be entirely sure what someones deep values really are; this is linked to their motive, which is not tangible, it is subtle. We also do not know what leaders are doing as discussed already. We also seem to be very fixed that once we have deemed a leader to be a certain way, that they cannot change. Change of nature is very difficult, and unlikely, however change of motivation is very possible. One day we may have a big investment in one country, and the next day in another country. This will totally change a persons outlook and interest in that country. Therefore alignment with individuals is a very dangerous thing. The famous saying that all that glistens isn’t gold comes to mind. Am fairly convinced that the rationale for a lot of people not liking Trump is because of the way he manages his external or superficial values; he has no regard or care about how he comes across. For many, it can be extremely irritating to see someone with such lack of care about how he comes across. Most people were very certain, especially given the US’ history of starting wars in various places in the world, that there was a major risk of a global conflict. It didn’t happen. Once people noticed his mannerisms and certain tendencies, the hole only began to bigger for them, since certainly didn’t fundamentally change. This made it a very easy choice for many after this feeling had been exacerbated over 4 years. Trumps abrasive approach challenging many global business in the way they operate, also didn’t win him much support from those engaged in the pursuit of profit. Globalism is profitable for the corporate, and this is something Trump was adding many conditions to. This came at a price. Corporates control the plumbing, and so having them against you will never work so well. In conclusion, what can we learn from this election, Trump & Biden aswell as predecessors? Never attach yourself to an individual, but only values. It is the energy that flows that is important, not who is holding it at the moment. The passing of the olympic torch from country to country is very beautiful in that sense. The country holding the flame is an important a detail, but light is more important. So here is to the preservation of deep values as leadership changes hands once again.

“A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons.”

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, Purport, Śrimad Bhagavatam 4.18.5